Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

bhsurfer writes "The city of San Francisco has banned the Segway [CNN.com] from it's sidewalks before they've even arrived. Apparently Santa Cruz, Oakland and San Mateo are considering a ban as well. What a bunch of spoilsports...or are they? Any thoughts on this?" According to the article, hiring high-powered lobbyists may have backfired. but the city claims safety concerns are behind the decision.

My biggest problem with Segway is that the creator has said that it would be used on the sidewalk. He also said the top speed was 12.5 mph. I don't want to get hit by someone going 12.5 mph walking, segwaying, skating, or riding a bike.

I wonder how long before two morons on segways talking on their cellphones ram into each other in a head-on collision at top speed.

At a minumum the company making them should prove how safe they are in a collision by having a couple executives ram each other. At top speed. Also they should show how safe they are for pedestrians by ramming a few executives while they stand on the sidewalk.

How long before someone posts some mods to get a segway going at 80mph?

And perhaps if I run towards a bullet and hit it, I will stop and the bullet will shoot away at 300 mph.
Seriously. You can't just assume M2(Vf2) = 0. Remember to conserve energy too.
High school physics 1 can be a dangerous thing with no high school physics 2.

Since Segway comes with speed governors, it would be just as simple to mandate they be dialed down to their slowest setting until there was more experience with it. When cars were introduced, the same thing happened. Eventually, when people understand the issues, reasonable accomodations can be made.

There is a local mall that's near an elderly care centre, and it is a little unnerving when an attack wing of grannies on those electric trikes come whizzing down the mall at you on seniors' discount day.

I suppose all those people who wanted a Segway could get one of those electric trikes, slap on a grey wig and go for it... But I don't know if anything less agile than a bicycle, heavier too, should be mixing with pedestrians at 15 mph on the sidewalk. (And you just have know that they'll be riding their Segway while talking on their cellphone, admit it!) They haven't banned them from the roads, have they? Heh.

I don't think it has anything to do with alternative fuels. I work in local government in Australia, (so I can't comment definitively on the laws over there) but there is a huge scary thing that is crippling all government services. It's called Public Liability. This is basically insurance that must be paid in ludicrous amounts incase of an accident, and this massive insurance bill is calculated depending on the perceived risks involved with the activity. This is due solely to people suing the city because they injured themselves, whether they were at fault or not is irrelevant. This is the main reason skateboards and bikes are banned on footpaths, all contruction projects are audited a million times over by safety inspectors and insurance auditors. The days of falling over and twisting your ankle and having the city pay for your bandages are gone. Now they pay for your ambulance, your hospital bills, then they are sued for loss of income, mental anguish, etc. It's fucked up. Nowadays, it costs the city millions being in and out of court for the stupidest things. The segways aren't allowed on footpaths because they are perceived as dangerous, and no city can afford the bullshit that goes along with increased risks on our streets. This, unfortunately, is what you get when you live in a highly litigious society. That's why I reckon they aren't allowed, and I wouldn't be suprised if the same thing happens everywhere. They'll probably be relegated to a situation similar to bicycles, whereas it's cool to ride them on the road or bike paths, but not allowed on footpaths. Can any Americans who have experience with this sort of thing comment on whether the situation is similar for you guys? I would imagine so.

I guess they should be sueing the city for allowing cars to operate and sidewalks to be built.

I guess you're a jackass. They have banned Segways from sidewalks. Bicycles and skateboards have long been banned from sidewalks in many areas without real complaint. Why? Because sidewalks are for pedestrians, not vehicles. You can still roam SF freely on your Segway- just hang one of those triangular orange reflectors on your back and get out there in the road, where the rest of the motorised vehicles live. I'm still dumbfounded that the Department of Motor Vehicles hasn't gotten in on regulating these things. You'll see serious lawsuits when these things actually hit people. Then they'll be regulated almost out of existance. Pushing for too much freedom is dangerous- you might get just enough rope to hang yourself with.

Um, they are relatively slow-moving vehicles that can stop on a dime. Kids are more likely to get run over by some hurrying dot-com suit running to the next VC meeting without looking where he's going.

I know Dean Kaman's smart, but unless he figured out some way to negate the effect of mass, your Segway isn't going to magically stop before it slams into the old woman you suddenly see a foot in front of you when you are going 12 mph. People, going much slower, bump into each other on sidewalks all the fucking time, especially in a crowded place like San Francisco.

So, to anyone who's actually seen a crowded SF sidewalk in a neighborhood like, for instance, Noe Valley, it doesn't take much brain power to immediately see that the Segway is going to be a real hazard on the sidewalks.

Luckily, the traffic is very slow in SF, making a Segway on the road pretty much the safest place it can be -- few cars make it above 12MPH on many SF streets. Just like Razor scooters or gas-powered scooters, the road is the place for Segways in SF.

On another note, I wish Amianno (sp?) and co would ban jogging strollers on SF sidewalks. They are also dangerous, and take up too much room. Given the condition of SF sidewalks, especially in baby-rich environments (like Noe Valley), a small Kolcraft stroller is far smarter.

Sorry sir, but once you enter Canada, you have to turn over your handguns and obey the laws the physics. On the bright side sir, in the near future, if you're caught with a joint, we'll take you to a back room and frown at you for hours.

As Scotty said, "Ye canna change the laws of physics". If you're travelling at speed X, you have to factor in reaction time (hopefully not impared by alcohol, drugs, PDA or cellphone), then determine the breaking time of a Segway from speed X.

You just walked to the corner of a building on the sidewalk and, oops, sorry sir, that time is now, *crunch*! A troll stole your wallet, the thief got your watch. You have scored 23 points out of a possible sagan points.

This message will now be repeated in French.. oh wait, you're dead. Eh bein.

I've never lived in any of the cities in question, but I know in Honolulu that tourists can rent mopeds, and they drive them on sidewalks everywhere. I would much rather see them on Segways. It might even keep them out of the roads, too.

Really? I've lived there 10 years, 1/2 mile from Waikiki, and I've never seen mopeds on the sidewalks *everywhere*. I do ocassionally see groups of tourists with mopeds *on the road*. But I see more mopeds on the University of Hawaii campus than anywhere else. Not on sidewalks either.

As far as I know it is illegal to drive a moped or scooter on most major US city sidewalks. They are considered street vehicles, so it is about the same as driving your car on the sidewalk. Maybe it is different in Hawaii. I would personally rather see no motorized vehicles on the sidewalks, hell bikes should even be there, sidewalks are for people and walking.

I'd be happy to ride my bike on the street instead of the sidewalk. I don't want to deal with walkers - Unfortunately, 2 things need to change to make this feasible:

1) F***ing drivers need to know that bicycles belong on the road. I have been sworn at more times than I care to count by drivers passing me (or swerving around - see #2).2) Shoulders. They're good. It's bad for bikers when shoulders don't exist. I don't WANT to ride in the middle of traffic - it's easy for a car to maintain 35mph, but it's hard for me!

In the meantime, I will only ride on the road when the sidewalk is LESS safe (for me or re: pedestrians) or when there's NO sidewalk. (I guess that also makes it less safe..)

Segway, cool toy, but I just don't see what I would do with it. I can already go on my skateboard pretty damn fast. If I need to go faster I have a bike. If faster than that, my truck. Otherwise I'm walking. I don't get where it fits in, other than some lazy asses and maybe a heavy duty one for delivering mail along the boardwalk.

I'm not even sure that my kid thinks they're cool. I'll ask when I get home.

IMHO they're a pretty stupid idea. Most sidewalks are so chaotic that they wouldn't be worth riding anyways. They're too expensive to lock outside, too heavy to carry into the office or onto public transit, too big to stuff under your desk... never mind how they'll do for vehicle range or power consumption. They're not sheltered, so there's no advantage in the rain, they're too slow for the roads, too slow for bicycle lanes even, but too fast to go anywhere people go.

No, you got it all right. Years ago, when they were spouting, "Cities will be redesigned around this invention!" we thought that it would be so great, that the cost of redesigning a city was well worth it. What they actually meant, was that it has no place in today's cities. Doh!

youre not supposed to ride bikes on sidewalks! youre supposed to ride them in the street!
as for the segway, i think they should wait for it to be a problem before wasting their time banning it....i mean, how many of these things did they anticipate being on the sidewalks anyway?

When I ride my bike in a downtown area where there are lots of cars parked on the side of the street, I get on the sidewalk and ride slowly.

The reason is that I can't rely on the drivers watching before they slam open a car door. Technically I'm not supposed to do it but I've had conversations with cops about it and they mostly agree that I'm better off on the sidewalk as long as I'm going slow. Same will probably be true for segway.

Or, here's an even better Idea, Just Don't Ride A Bike on City Streets, ride it on a Bike trail if your city has one.

Unfortunately, bike trails have turned out to have poor safety records. (Here are some pointers to related research. [lesberries.co.uk]) The main problem is with intersections: try to figure out how to design a path alongide a road so that right-of-way is always clear, cyclists don't always have to stop (if you ask them to stop at every single driveway and intersection, they're just not going to), stoplight cycle times aren't significantly increased (think what'll happen if you try adding extra light phases for the bikes...), etc., etc. Lots of people have attempted this, in this country and elsewhere. The results are not encouraging.

So the moral is: no, as a cyclist, you really *are* better off riding on the city streets. Research has found this to be safest, it works great (I probably ride a couple thousand miles a year on city streets, and have never had a crash), it's fun once you get the hang of it, it gets you where you want to go extremely quickly.... Don't wait for a special bike ghetto before you start riding. Observe the standard traffic rules and be courteous, and you can ride your bike wherever you want right now.

Bikes belong in the street. There is a political/social movement called Critical Mass [critical-mass.org] that advocates bike-safe streets. ANY city can start a Critical Mass ride, they take place in cities all over the planet on the last friday of the month - AND ITS SUPER FUN!

all thats necessary is a few posters in the bike shops designating a meeting time (city hall, say 19:00) and the group determines the ride based on their mood. Follow the rules of the road, and pass out filers.

The Segways should have to adhere to the same rules that bikes do. Bikes aren't allowed on the sidewalk either. They have to follow many of the laws that cars do. This includes riding in the street, going with the flow of traffic. So, why can't the Segways use the bike lane (or curb area) too?

The Segways should have to adhere to the same rules that bikes do. Bikes aren't allowed on the sidewalk either. They have to follow many of the laws that cars do. This includes riding in the street, going with the flow of traffic. So, why can't the Segways use the bike lane (or curb area) too?

This is mostly true, but note that it's not universally true that bicycles are banned from sidewalks; in the US this is usually a matter for local governments (though there may also be a few states with such bans, I'm not sure).

Certainly it's true that, whatever the law says, people on vehicles with nonzero stopping distances (like bicycles) are better off riding with traffic rather than riding on the sidewalks.

And give you a hefty $70 fine. Bikes are treated as motorcycles from a law enforcment standpoint. They must abide by all the same laws. No sidewalks, no running red lights, must use turn signals etc. The reason you see so many people ON sidewalks with bikes is because police are typically lax on chasing them down in a lot of areas. But in high pedestrian traffic areas you will see lots of "bike cops" making sure bikers are on the road where they belong.

No way. They are equally as dangerous as bikes, if not more so (Segways don't have brakes).

Bzzzt. Wrong.

While the Segway doesn't have traditional friction brakes, it does have regenerative braking ala the GM EV1. Essentially when you lean back to brake, the Segway puts the motors in reverse and turns them into generators. Otherwise there'd be not real way to stop a Segway.

The first (in fact only) time I've ever seen a Segway was on the streets of San Francisco. I saw a Postal employee riding down the sidewalk with his USPS-branded saddlebags on the sides. I wonder if they have had bad experiences with Segway on their streets...

Buyers also must attend a multi-hour training course before the scooter is shipped to them...

I thought one of the main thing about Segway is that it was supposed to be sooooo intuitive like walking? what's up with the multi-hour training?

besides that - does multi-hour mean 2 hours? or 5 hours? Worse yet - Non of the "mandated this many hours courses" I have ever attended lasted for the specific number of hourse.

Take, for example, in NY before you get a license you need a 5 hour (or somesuch) course. Not that I am complaining (that much) but the course ended after about three at a "DMV approved course center." - I say this because if the Segway was not as intuitive as they gloat, and a lenghty safty course was really necessary, then I'd fear of walking from now on - While bad drivers for the most part run into other cars, bad segway charioteers will mostly run into pedestrians.

I've ridden a segway at my old company (they gave it to us because we made parts for them). It is very cool and very easy to use! I loved it!

However, I do understand why this is banned. It's too wide and too fast, and would cause absolute chaos if it became popular on the streets of any big city. This is a good move, and San Francisco is solving a problem before it even happened.

Think of it this way: in ten years time, what will have more fatalities per machine on the road, the Segway or the car?

Judging from everything I've read about the Segway, it'll be the car, of course. So why don't they ban cars in San Francisco, too? Because use of cars is too widespread, and the public would be outraged if you tried to take them away.

If the Segway's all the hype suggests, then maybe in years hence the new machine will become as entrenched in daily life as the car (...assuming San Fran doesn't become a national trendsetter on the issue, and kill the Segway before it's given a chance). Until then you can expect this sort of thing. Just imagine how many people are going to worry about the first supersonic turbo-boostered flying rocket cars, you know?

"So why don't they ban cars in San Francisco, too? Because use of cars is too widespread, and the public would be outraged if you tried to take them away."

Don't you think you're perception of what's going on is a bit narrow? The reason that cars are okay and Segways aren't is because they have roads for cars to drive on. Segways do not. Put a Segway on the road and you get vehicles moving too slow piloted by unlicensed people. Put a Segway on sidewalks and you have motorized vehicles moving faster than pedestrian traffic with no real rules to follow since no license is required.

This isn't knee-jerk reaction, it's common sense. San Fran's the type of place where a LOT of people can afford and will likely indulge in buying these machines.

Don't you think you're perception of what's going on is a bit narrow? The reason that cars are okay and Segways aren't is because they have roads for cars to drive on

You are confusing cause and effect. Cars use roads because roads were there before cars were invented. They were originally for pedestrians and horses, but as the popularity of cars increased, cars became the principal users, and in many places pedestrians and horses are no longer allowed to use the roads. Assuming Segways actually prove to be more than hype, perhaps they will become the principal users of sidewalks.

Here's a better column about the whole debate from the San Francisco Chronicle. [sfgate.com] Basically, you have a bunch of uptight people over there, over a technology that hasn't even been used by the public yet. Fortunately, other cities, like Sacramento, are waiting to see whether there are any problems caused first, before acting.

Who the hell walks in Sacramento? You could run 120mph jet-powered steamrollers down Sacramento sidewalks and not hit any pedestrians.

Last time I was there in '97 the sidewalks were empty, apart from fat-assed Sacramento residents who jiggled their way across them on their way into KFC or McDonalds for a bucket or bag full of fried lard.

The reason why pedestrians in San Francisco don't want Segways on their sidewalks is simple physics. A Segway weighs around 70lbs. The average rider would weigh around 150lbs, with some weighing well in excess of 200lbs. The combined weight would be at least 220lbs, with weights up to 300lbs possible. A Segway can travel at up to 12mph. Getting hit by a 250lbs mass traveling at 12mph would be like getting tackled by an NFL linebacker. It could cripple the average adult, and it would kill old people. San Francisco has a large elderly population, and they have enough trouble getting around town without having to worry about being creamed by some pasty yuppie ass tooling down the sidewalk on his $10,000 toy, yapping on his goddamn cell phone.

It's called the SIDEWALK. SIDE, as in at the side of the road, and WALK, as in where your fat lazy ass is supposed to, like, walk. If you want to operate a motor vehicle, do it in the street. The sidewalk is reserved for pedestrians.

My "attitude" towards my "fellow citizens" was formed by their insolent, childish, selfish, obnoxious behavior. If you have a problem with my "attitude" towards yuppies, try teaching the little fucktards a few basic lessons in civility. Namely:

* Pay attention to where the fuck you are on the road when you're driving your $70,000 petroleum chugging fume belching lane hogging pedestrian composter.* Learn how to park. In a single space - not three.* Learn how to use your turn signal. And how to turn it off.* Learn that red lights mean, "stop."* Turn off the ringer on your goddamn cell phone when you attend the movies or the symphony. Anybody who's earning $150,000 a year for "harnessing cutting edge models" or "branding granular e-business" or "utilizing magnetic schemas" or whatever the e-bullshit d'jour is in the tech sector ought to be able to figure out how to silence their $500 cell phone.

>Do you really think that "pasty yuppie asses" will>be the ones to buy this thing - instead of (for example)>postal workers, who are already testing it?

Well, considering it's a $5,000 tech gadget that performs essentially the same function that a bicycle, skateboard or roller-skates could perform for at least $4,500 less, yes I'd say "pasty yuppie asses" are exactly the crowd that will be buying this thing. Anybody who ever worked an honest day in their life would certainly blanch at the thought of blowing $5,000 on a toy that makes you look like a clueless dork, and turns you into a threat to 90-year-old grandmothers on their way to buy groceries. But based on prior experience (see above), I wouldn't expect selfish, self-absorbed yuppies to spend a single millisecond considering the welfare of others.

I could see the Segway being useful in an environment like a warehouse, but we weren't talking about banning them in warehouses, only on the sidewalks.

Regarding postal workers, they're already reporting they hate the things. As one of them put it, standing around on a Segway buzzing down the sidewalk at 12mph when the temperature is below freezing turns you into a giant popsicle on a stick real quick.

Anybody who ever worked an honest day in their life would certainly blanch at the thought of blowing $5,000 on a toy that makes you look like a clueless dork, and turns you into a threat to 90-year-old grandmothers on their way to buy groceries.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but I'm sure people said precisely the same thing when the "horseless carriage" was introduced....

Too bad it "pisses you off", but that's your problem. It's your own ignorance and "hipocrasy" you should work on. I have a *very* close relative who barely escaped with his life from a situation where the "traditionally privileged" had been promoted as source of everyone's problems often enough that a mob decided that it was time for "justice" (that means violence against the scapegoated minority), yet you think it "causes little harm".

Unlike you, I don't find it any more acceptable for a liberal to spout class warfare vitriol than for a white supremacist to spout racist drivel.

i use a segway ht to go 7+ miles per day, i given up a car, saved over $10,000 and i've even lost 10lbs with my extra time that i have each day to do more things like (exercise) as opposed to sitting in traffic.

today i hit 100 miles, it took about 14 days of commuting to hit that, i didn't count other trips or previous commute trips so i could keep careful logs. for the first 100 miles or so, i personally saved about $582.00+ by using a segway ht, gave up a car and lost 10lbs. some things weren't quantifiable, results may vary for others.

"New Hampshire-based Segway hired lobbying firms but has made no contributions to any public officials or candidates, said Matt Dailida, the company's director of state government affairs."

The problem apprarently was that Segway, LLC. failed to sufficiently bribe California city officials. Now they're going to have to dig deeper into those pockets to make up for the hurt feelings of city officials and overcome the entrenched pedestrian rights groups.

In California, Santa Cruz, Oakland and San Mateo are considering joining San Francisco in banning Segways from sidewalks. There is no similar move in congested Los Angeles, city officials said.

Translation:

In California, officials in Santa Cruz, Oakland and San Mateo are still waiting on additional payoffs, and are wary after the much publicized "payoff check is in the mail" campaign failed in San Francisco.

The postal carriers are ditching it also (and others who were expected to use it, like policeman, security, etc). A quote from a postal worker in this week's Business Week was "You can't keep warm if you're not walking. You end up frozen like popsicle on a stick." Not a ringing endorsement for those states that are chilly 9 months of the year.

Yes, San Francisco banned this device. We have some very liberal board of supervisors running the city government here that defined the word 'bleeding heart.' Granted, some of the reasons for the ban aren't too bad, but some of them are very big brother.

The problem is that everyone is worried that the elderly walking down the sidewalk would be injured by one of these things.

There is also the whole pro-walking thing which lobbied pretty hard against it. They believe this device would cause everyone to get fat.

The price of the device didn't help its case either. Being a liberal city, a $4000 device is seen as a rich man's toy and rich men should be spending their money on social problems such as the homeless problem, not toys. This viewpoint is pretty common here unfortunately.

Bikes have been banned for quite some time on the sidewalk and for anyone who has biked down Market St. knows, it isn't particularly safe to be in the road either.

Rollerblades have also been banned on the sidewalk for some time. I've seen people try to go down the road on them and it isn't pretty given the general quality of the roads themselves.

Powered scooters are getting more and more common. They seem the safest of any one-person mode of transport simply because they can keep up with traffic. They are obviously banned on sidewalks, but have no real problems with the street from what I've seen.

Powered wheelchairs however have not been banned even though they seem to cause a whole lot more injury than anything else. That would hurt the disabled however, so it isn't even considered.

On the other hand, you have to realize that the sidewalks are litterly *packed* with people in many parts of the city. The segway would have caused problems simply because it is impossible to walk without bumping into someone.

Well as i see it it makes perfect sense. I live in a crowded city as well and for me it is obvious that putting any kind of machine on the sidewalk would be dangerous at least for some, would cause congestions and havoc.

So the only machines allowed are for people that could not move around if it wasnt for machines, because it would be cruel to render them unable to get out of their homes. But fortunately the numbers of the disabled are not large enough to cause problems.

I would not really mind if it took me axtra 5 minutes to get to the subway, if it was on the account of crowd caused by a disabled person on a wheelchair. But if it was caused by some guy who was too lazy to walk, then i would be mad.

The price of the device didn't help its case either. Being a liberal city, a $4000 device is seen as a rich man's toy and rich men should be spending their money on social problems such as the homeless problem, not toys. This viewpoint is pretty common here unfortunately.

Yeah, no kidding. Frankly, I think that's the heart of the matter. The rest is just political rhetoric.

I'm no fan of the Segway. I think it's pretty stupid, and will never be anything more than a toy. But when I read about it being banned in San Francisco, one thought came to my mind -- "typical!"

Personally, I hate all the little punk speed freaks begging for money all over the city. But I don't propose banning skateboards, which I'm sure pose a greater threat to pedestrians.

There is also the whole pro-walking thing which lobbied pretty hard against it. They believe this device would cause everyone to get fat.

All other factors aside, these are the people that make absolutely burn with anger. These idiotic health nazis who think they have the right to tell everyone else how to live their life. It's none of their fucking business if someone wants to use motored transportation, even if that causes "everyone to get fat". These are the same absolute imbeciles [cspinet.org] who whine about the fat content of foods and who want to sue fast food places.

I wish these people would just go live their life of denial and leave the rest of us alone.

Actually, they probably realized the Dork Factor; that these jackasses driving around on these things, looking like they're trying to hold in a massive bowel movement, would be a big distraction for regular pedestrians and drivers. Everyone would stop and look, saying "Hey, look at that dork!" and all sorts of mayhem would ensue.

There used to be a time when Britain was THE leading industrial country. But people got comfortable with that, old industrial interests got entrenched, and as a result they had laws in the end of the 19th century that prohibited automobiles from driving faster than 4mph, and a pedestrian with a red flag had to walk in front of every vehicle. Now it doesn't take too much thinking to see that a country that passes such laws can never last as a leading technological power.I can just see the US going down the same road with its overregulation of everything.

Buddy of mine is a Dallas Police Officer and he told me that these suckers were basically banned months ago here in Dallas. Namely because they are a danger to pedestrians, 80 lbs piece of metal with a 150+ lbs person jamming down the street at 12+ mph makes for a pretty good accident waiting to happen. Personally I am glad they are banning these things, they are useless and will just make people lazy. If we need anything we need subways in all large cities, and people can just walk between stations, least it will get people off their ever growing butts for a while.

My biggest question is where do you put them once you're finished travelling? With cars you park them, with bikes, you can lock them in bike racks, but there is zero infrastructure in place to secure your Segway.

What's the point in taking a Segway somewhere if you can't lock it down. This means you couldn't take it to go shopping, seeing a movie, go to the doctor's, go to class, etc. You might be able to take it to work and keep the Segway in your office... if you have space. That's about it... it doesn't have any other practical use.

I would prefer rollerblades to the Segway any day, since they are small and portable.

This is a motoized vehicle, and had absolutely no business on the sidewalk. If anywhere, it should be on the road, with rights/responsibilities somewhere between a bicycle and a motorcycle.

A sidewalk is for pedestrians, not bicycles, mopeds or anything else. Perhaps, roller skaters, but I think that's the extent of how mechanical a sidewalk dwelling vehicle should be.

I'm an avid cyclist (both competitive and recreational), and I know damn well that we cyclists have to fight tooth and nail for our right to the road and/or bike lanes. I cringe every time I see a cyclist on the sidewalk because it causes people to expect that cyclists will ride on the sidewalk, and this is just not right. We have a right to the road, and have fought very hard for what little bit of it we have.

Likewise, I shudder every time I see an avid runner in the bike lane. I guess they do it because they can't be bothered with the lame sidewalk.

Anyway, every vehicle has it's place in the transportation system. Pedestrians belong on the sidewalk. Bicycles have a right to the road, and the same responsibilities as any car or motorcycle. I think a Segway should fall into the same category as a bicycle; it should have a right to the road, but shouldn't be able to take the full lane unless necessary for safety, just like a bicycle.

I'm watching this thread closely. I don't doubt for a minute that the PR firms that handle tech clients have seeded/. with paid posters. Segway is backed by famously deep pockets and would be a likely customer for a/. turfing.

Thus far, all the highly modded posts are quite rightly pointing out the existing laws and science of bicycle transportation. Let's see what the latter posts look like now that that the employees of Kamen's PR company are likely to be working late tonight.

This [johnforester.com] is a good place to start if you're looking for real studies of transportation safety.

I can understand this happening in SF, where you can't walk slowly without touching shoulders with everyone. On a large moving platform with handlebars, you're just begging for injuries and lawsuits and whatnot.

Oakland is a bit less crazy, same with Santa Cruz, and San Mateo is just silly (hey we're a big city too! give us some press!)

Anyway, there are definitly areas of all these cities where I'd love to be moving a bit faster, as well as areas where everyone should be walking. Bikes, rollerblades, skateboards, mopeds, etc should be banned by an area-by-area basis.

How about Walking-Only zones (handicapped excepted) in certain areas as opposed to shooting things down individually before they are even being shipped....geez

On the sidewalk in urban areas, you can (IANAL, so this is just based on experience and what I've known cops to give you a talking-to for) ride skates (inline or the older non-trendy kind), non-powered Razor(TM)-type scooters and your Nike Air Force Ones. Yea, you can stop down the sidewalk in your... Ugh, I wish I could get that song out of my head.

The problem I see the Segway having is the same problem Go-peds have. You can't ride go-peds on the sidewalk. You can't ride them in the street either, most of them lack the equipment and certification required to make them street legal.

The smallest gas powered (as in engine displacement) street legal vehicle is a 49.9cc moped/scooter. If you take a look at one, you'll notice it has DOT approved lighting, turn and brake signals. I'm sure if the Segway was modified to be street legal, it could be driven on the street, but ask anyone who has driven a moped (usually with a top speed of about 30MPH) what it's like having people not see you and passing you going 10-25MPH faster than you in most cases. If the Segway has a top speed of 12MPH and is less visible than a biycle, sharing the road with cars would be nothing short of suicide.

As others have said many times before (especially those who ride 49.9cc mopeds/scooters), there needs to be a dedicated lane for low-speed powered vehicles on roadways. Mixing low-speed vehicles with cars and trucks is just as dangerous as mixing low-speed vehicles with pedestrians.

Issues like these make me glad I'm old enough to have a driver's licence and just drive a car.

Remember that prior to this, the default in most cities is that motorized vehicles of any kind (except the powered wheelchairs of the disabled) are not allowed on sidewalks.In some cases vehicles of any kind are by default banned, usually bikes and often rollerblades and even skateboards.

Segway worked hard to get laws passed to declare their device a special case, not like an ordinary motorized vehicle. Some cities resisted, said, "no, we are not going to make a special exception for your new device. It gets classed like any other motorized vehicle, and as always, it's banned from the sidewalks."

Where Kamen goofed is he got broader laws passed declaring the Segway to not be a vehicle and thus, according to state and national laws IT IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE ROADS. So in places where it is banned on the sidewalk, it is also, unless they say otherwise, also not allowed on the roads either. I don't think this will be enforced, though.

I do agree they should see if the device is a danger before deciding where it should go. But realize that the current default is what SF did. What other cities who are "not banning" it have done is to change their rules to allow this one motorized vehicle on their sidewalks.

Think about it;This is a device that makes you taller, makes you physically bigger and can make other people move out of your way. I was watching the segway being used in a video promoting the segway and the thing that is most noticed is that people walking would automactically get out of the Segway's way. I have had enough of fucking SUV and the asshole driver bullying everyone else on the road. I dont want to see it happen on the sidewalk also.

The Segway marketing operation bothers me. Vast hype, nationwide lobbying, but no volume shipments or profitability. Just like a dot-com.

Allowing small powered vehicles on sidewalks is a real issue. The Segway isn't the only contender. What about electric-powered scooters, which far outnumber Segways? What about powered shopping carts, like you see in some stores? What about all those golf-cart type devices sold to the elderly? Where do you draw the line?

Skateboarders aren't usually a problem because bad skaters wipe themselves out before they hit others.

This article [sfweekly.com] in the SF Weekly gives the other side of the story, and how Segway's high-priced PR effort backfired when a demo smashed into a wall.

I've seen two yuppies (the financial kind) whiz by on the sidewalk in front of my office in downtown San Francisco (so much for "a device that hasn't arrived yet"), and I wholly agree with the ban - these contraptions are a serious hazard to pedestrians. They are wide, have a high center of gravity and are very fast. They will also probably be driven by the same heedless people who burn red lights in their SUVs (I see that happen at least twice a week in SF).

The ones being sold to the public have an 8 mph limiting key. The industrial ones had a top speed of 15 mph but aren't meant for streets. The skate boarders and bicycles go faster than that on sidewalks. The are a potential hazard but so are many legal devices.

I don't understand how the Segway, which weighs 69lbs can be safer than a skateboard, or rollerblades. I think that taking the laissez-faire attitude you propose might be difficult in a litigious culture. What if someone really gets hurt by a careless Segway user? Who pays? The temptation might be to sue the richest entity involved, namely the city which is responsible for the sidewalk. This way, the city can say that they did what they could to prevent the problem.

The Segway might be safer for the rider than a skateboard et. al., but it sure as shit isn't safer for the other people on the sidewalk. It's an extra 70lbs -- on top of who knows how much tofu- and sprout-fed mealy Californian -- moving at up to 15mph. Given how godawfully bad San Francisco drivers are, I shudder to think how many pedestrians would get plowed over by yuppie asshats with their new $8,000 toy.

I have no problem with keeping these things off our sidewalks, for the same reasons that I have no problem with bicycles being confined to the street.

Actually, a lot of cities have banned use of skateboards, skates (quads and inlines), bicicles, and other devices on sidewalks. I, for one, am thankful for that. I shouldn't have to worry about dodging a skater who isn't paying attention to what he's doing.

Hey asshole, here's a tidbit for you: we here in San Francisco don't give a flying handshake if lackwits from Ames, Iowa think Segways are safe. Respect the Federal system, and butt the fuck out.

This measure wasn't something the big, bad government imposed upon us. Local pedestrian and bicycle organizations got together to make sure that the state's insipid redefinition of "pedestrian" to include people on Segways wouldn't fly in this city.

Well, I'll explain it for you and all the other lazy ignorant types who lurk around here. The California law defines pedestrian, and it includes any wheelchair when the operator, "by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move
about as a pedestrian." The amenedment for Segway was just a giveaway, redefining anyone on a Segway as a pedestrian, which is absurd.

I'm not a luddite, and I don't think we should preemptively ban Segways. We've got plenty of laws for people acting unsafely in the public right-of-way. If some nut on a Segway mows down an old lady in a crosswalk, bust him for that, not for his ride. Read on, though...

Are they going to ban skateboards, roller blades, and inline electric scooters as well?

Here in Portland you're not allowed to skateboard or roller[blade|skate] on many sidewalks, and I can't imagine electric scooters are permitted on any sidewalk. Neither do I want Segways typing up the bike lane. I've put over 20,000 miles on a couple bikes in Portland, so I speak from experience. It's dangerous enough without these slow (12MPH top speed? barely spare change to me on a a bike), bulky (wider than a bike) things being driven by total newbies running down the middle of the bike lane.

Seaways are supposed to be safer then these things.

There you have the crux of it. "Supposed to be" accordng to whom? According to research done by the company that stands to make a fortune if they're are widely adopted, that's who. There have been no large-scale tests done by disinterested 3rd parties, so we have no idea how safe these things are. I've only seen one in real life, and I nearly got nailed by it. They're quiet, they're bigger, faster and heavier than anything else on the sidewalk. Maybe they have horns or bells or something, but the guy who nearly creamed me didn't use it.

Stifling innovation? Christ, breath into a bag for a minute before you hyperventilate; no one's outlawing the manufacture or distribution of the bloody things. A couple cities are reacting badly to being pressured to accept them site unseen. I'd much rather my city council give the high hat to a high-tech lobbying firm than just rubber-stamp their ideas. NYC also banned them in the city: the ban is only good for a year, and doesn't apply to some government employees, who will be testing them for safety. What's wrong with a city deciding for itself whether or not to allow a new and potentially disruptive form of transportation?

Lets keep things exactly the way they are... I hate this preemptive rulemaking bullshit.

If you really thought that, then you'd be equally outraged by states preemptively allowing Segways, hmm?

For comparison, the fastest 100m dash was 10.2 meters per second, or almost 23 mph. A segway goes 12.5 mph, which is about 5.6 m/s -- faster than a swarm of killer bees or an australian crocodile [gatech.edu], but not quite as fast as a steep lava flow (9.1 m/s) or a Tyrannosaurus Rex (estimated at 11.1 m/s).

The segway is nearly as fast as a roadrunner (6.7 m/s)... just wait 'til Wiley E. Coyote gets his hands on one. In the meantime, imagine getting nailed by a 250 pound metal cyborg roadrunner as you walk to work.

If you could buzz by them at 12.5 MPH, you wouldn't even see the homeless, much less wing a quarter at 'em. (And if you did wing a quarter at a particularly worthy-looking bum at that speed, it'd probably only whizz by him and kill the poor bastard begging next to him!)

Likewise, if Segways were legal in SF, you could go anywhere in the city whenever you wanted, so who the hell would ride MUNI?

No bones about it, banning Segways is being done improve life for the homeless and to keep MUNI afloat. *g*

But you don't have to go that fast. Most cars have top speeds well in excess of 100mph...so does that mean we have to ban cars from the street? No. It means we put restrictions on speed, or 'Speed Limits'. Just let Segway users recieve tickets if caught speeding. Have a registration system so that the people couldn't get away with not paying. Anything. Just not an ignorant ban before any interesting injuries even have the possibility to occur.

Thanks for the offer...I am curious! (Probably won't make it to lovely Seattle again for some time though)

I find your experience believable, if not entirely germane. I've gone hundreds of miles on rollerblades with no problem either, but that doesn't mean they stop as well as a bike, let alone a car.

Essentially, if your upcoming halt in a Segway is not a sudden surprise, it makes sense it would stop very well...the mechanism will be able to read your body's cues, speed up the wheels to get them in front of your center of mass, and thereby eliminate the torque during your stop.

However, if you run the thing into, say, an unseen curb, I think you will endo. Or whatever you call it on a Segway. I've done just that twice on a bicycle with one endo (as a kid) and one non-endo (as an adult). So statistically that's what?....maybe a 50/50 endo probability with a 5% confidence level;-)

Rollerblades, BTW, are weird to hit unseen obstacles in. The tiny wheels mean of course that they stop short on relatively small irregularities (let alone curbs). On the other hand, having two legs means that hitting something usually results in nothing more than an awkward stagger as you quickly lift the other leg and thrust it in front of you. I haven't fallen while skating forward in years (don't ask about backward, ow!).

Of course, none of this debate has much to do with whether they belong on sidewalks. Personally, I think they should be treated like bikes -- legally expected to ride the streets, but unoficially ignored if they take sidewalks at reasonably low speeds. (I always ride my bike on the street).